DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 13 and 19, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “a MIMO radar waveform comprising circulating N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform.” A review of the specification sets forth the term “circulating.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed “circulating” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The claim indicates that the N waveforms are circulating; however, the claim does not explicitly disclose what each waveform may circulate. Without further clarification the claim comprises multiple conflicting interpretations which blur the meets and bounds of the claim. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0021] “all of the circulating N waveforms (having frequencies depending linearly on time) apart from the respective initial frequencies have the same chirp parameters.” It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “circulating.” For examination purposes “circulating” will be interpreted to mean that a complete circular chirp cycle is completed each cycle.
Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang(DE 102018010369 A1) in view of Chen(US20200233076A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lang discloses
A multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) radar apparatus (“an RF frontend 10 of a MIMO system with three TX antennas 5 and two RX antennas 6.” [0021]), comprising: a reception device (FIG.4, Part.RX1); Anda transmission device (FIG.4, Part.TX1) configured to: generate a MIMO radar waveform comprising […] N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform through N transmission channels with a constant relative time shift between the circulating N waveforms, where N is an integer larger than 1 (“After each chirp, the active TX channel is changed, so that the first chirp is transmitted via the first TX channel TX1, the second chirp via the second TX channel TX2, the third chirp via the third TX channel TX3, the fourth chirp again via the first TX channel TX1, etc.” [0037]);generate a reference signal (FIG.4, Parts.101&104); transmit the MIMO radar waveform(“an RF frontend 10 of a MIMO system with three TX antennas 5 and two RX antennas 6.” [0021]); and provide the reception device with the generated reference signal (FIG.4, Parts.101&104); wherein the reception device is configured to: receive, over N reception channels, reception signals resulting from reflections of the transmitted MIMO radar waveform (“The represented partial sequence from 0 to C-1 represents a number C of successive chirps transmitted over the TX channel TX1 and received by the RX channel RX1 (virtual antenna 0)” [0050]); perform IQ mixing on the reception signals based on the reference signal to obtain intermediate frequency signals (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104,” [0020]); and perform analog-digital conversion on the obtained intermediate frequency signals to obtain analog-digital converted reception signals (FIG.4, Part.30)
Although Lang discloses a MIMO radar using N transmission channels, Lang does not explicitly disclose nor limit circulating MIMO radar waveforms. Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Chen discloses, a MIMO radar waveform comprising Circulating N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform (“form a complete circular chirp cycle radar frame. In this example, signals from each transmitter begin at the same time but are spaced apart in the frequency domain. “ [0057])
Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of circulating MIMO radar waveforms so as to gain the advantage of improving angular resolution [0040, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang discloses wherein, the reference signal is one of the N waveforms of the MIMO radar waveform (FIG.4, Parts.101&104 & “The LO signal sLO(t) is fed to the reference port of mixer 104, so that mixer 104 downmixes the (pre-amplified) RF receive signal yRF(t) into the baseband.” [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Although lang discloses that each chirp may comprise the same chirp parameters, lang does not appear to explicitly disclose varying frequency while holding all other parameters the same. Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Chen discloses, wherein all of the N waveforms other than respective initial frequencies have the same chirp parameters (“The compact TDM waveform parameters include the center frequency of the signal to be transmitted (f.sub.0), the bandwidth of the signal (B), the chirp duration (τ.sub.c), the pulse repetition interval (PRI), the time offset or delay between separate transmitter chirps (τ.sub.tdm), and the total number of transmitters (N.sub.TX)” [0100] & FIG.4)
Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of varying frequency while holding all other parameters the same so as to gain the advantage of improving resolution [0035, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang discloses wherein, the transmission device or the reception device is configured to phase shift the reference signal by 90 to obtain a phase shifted reference signal (FIG.4, Part.101 & 104); and wherein the reception device is configured to perform the IQ mixing based on the phase shifted reference signal (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104” [0020])
Regarding claim 11, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang discloses wherein, the reception device comprises a digital processing unit configured to: receive the digital-analog converted reception signals; and determine, with respect to an object generating the reflections of the transmitted MIMO radar waveform, at least one of: a location of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, distance of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, angle of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, direction of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, or velocity of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus (“The range-angle map can be calculated - analogous to the range-Doppler map - by two stage Fourier transformation.” [0046])
Regarding claim 13, Lang discloses wherein,
A method for detecting an object, comprising generating, by a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) radar apparatus (“an RF frontend 10 of a MIMO system with three TX antennas 5 and two RX antennas 6.” [0021]), N waveforms for N transmission channels of the MIMO radar apparatus, where N is an integer larger than 1 (“After each chirp, the active TX channel is changed, so that the first chirp is transmitted via the first TX channel TX1, the second chirp via the second TX channel TX2, the third chirp via the third TX channel TX3, the fourth chirp again via the first TX channel TX1, etc” [0037]); generating, by the MIMO radar apparatus, a reference signal (FIG.4, Parts.101&104) and phase shifting the reference signal by 90 to obtain a phase shifted reference signal (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104,” [0020]); transmitting, by the MIMO radar apparatus, a MIMO radar waveform to the object (FIG.4, Part.TX1), wherein the MIMO radar waveform comprises the generated N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform through the N transmission channels with a constant relative time shift between the […] N waveforms (“After each chirp, the active TX channel is changed, so that the first chirp is transmitted via the first TX channel TX1, the second chirp via the second TX channel TX2, the third chirp via the third TX channel TX3, the fourth chirp again via the first TX channel TX1, etc” [0037]); receiving, by the MIMO radar apparatus, over N reception channels of the MIMO radar apparatus, reception signals resulting from reflections of the transmitted MIMO radar waveform from the object (“The represented partial sequence from 0 to C-1 represents a number C of successive chirps transmitted over the TX channel TX1 and received by the RX channel RX1 (virtual antenna 0)” [0050]); performing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, IQ mixing on the reception signals based on the reference signal and the phase shifted reference signal to obtain intermediate frequency signals (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104,” [0020]); performing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, analog-digital conversion on the obtained intermediate frequency signals to obtain analog-digital converted reception signals (FIG.4, Part.30); and processing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, the analog-digital converted reception signals to determine at least one of: a location of the object, distance of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, angle of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, direction of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, or velocity of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus (“The range-angle map can be calculated - analogous to the range-Doppler map - by two stage Fourier transformation.” [0046])
Although Lang discloses a MIMO radar using N transmission channels, Lang does not explicitly disclose nor limit circulating MIMO radar waveforms. Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Chen discloses, the MIMO radar waveform comprises circulating the generated N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform (“form a complete circular chirp cycle radar frame. In this example, signals from each transmitter begin at the same time but are spaced apart in the frequency domain. “ [0057])
Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of circulating MIMO radar waveforms so as to gain the advantage of improving angular resolution [0040, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 13. Lang discloses wherein, the reference signal is one of the N waveforms of the MIMO radar waveform (FIG.4, Parts.101&104 & “The LO signal sLO(t) is fed to the reference port of mixer 104, so that mixer 104 downmixes the (pre-amplified) RF receive signal yRF(t) into the baseband.” [0018]).
Regarding claim 16, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 13. Although lang discloses that each chirp may comprise the same chirp parameters, lang does not appear to explicitly disclose varying frequency while holding all other parameters the same. Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Chen discloses wherein, all of the N waveforms other than respective initial frequencies have the same chirp parameters (“The compact TDM waveform parameters include the center frequency of the signal to be transmitted (f.sub.0), the bandwidth of the signal (B), the chirp duration (τ.sub.c), the pulse repetition interval (PRI), the time offset or delay between separate transmitter chirps (τ.sub.tdm), and the total number of transmitters (N.sub.TX)” [0100] & FIG.4)
Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of varying frequency while holding all other parameters the same so as to gain the advantage of improving resolution [0035, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, Lang discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon for detecting an object, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, facilitate performance of the following (“The digital signal processing chain can be at least partially implemented as software (e.g.,...).B. Firmware) which may be implemented on one or more processors, for example a microcontroller and/or a digital signal processor” [0014]) generating, by a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) radar apparatus, (“an RF frontend 10 of a MIMO system with three TX antennas 5 and two RX antennas 6.” [0021]) N waveforms for N transmission channels of the MIMO radar apparatus, where N is an integer larger than 1 (“After each chirp, the active TX channel is changed, so that the first chirp is transmitted via the first TX channel TX1, the second chirp via the second TX channel TX2, the third chirp via the third TX channel TX3, the fourth chirp again via the first TX channel TX1, etc” [0037]); generating, by the MIMO radar apparatus, a reference signal (FIG.4, Parts.101&104) and phase shifting the reference signal by 900 to obtain a phase shifted reference signal (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104,” [0020]); transmitting, by the MIMO radar apparatus, a MIMO radar waveform to the object (FIG.4, Part.TX1), wherein the MIMO radar waveform comprises […] the generated N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform through the N transmission channels with a constant relative time shift between the […] N waveforms (“After each chirp, the active TX channel is changed, so that the first chirp is transmitted via the first TX channel TX1, the second chirp via the second TX channel TX2, the third chirp via the third TX channel TX3, the fourth chirp again via the first TX channel TX1, etc” [0037]); receiving, by the MIMO radar apparatus, over N reception channels of the MIMO radar apparatus, reception signals resulting from reflections of the transmitted MIMO radar waveform from the object (“The represented partial sequence from 0 to C-1 represents a number C of successive chirps transmitted over the TX channel TX1 and received by the RX channel RX1 (virtual antenna 0)” [0050]); performing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, IQ mixing on the reception signals based on the reference signal and the phase shifted reference signal to obtain intermediate frequency signals (“an IQ demodulator (in-phase/quadrature-phase demodulator) can be used as mixer 104,” [0020]); performing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, analog-digital conversion on the obtained intermediate frequency signals to obtain analog-digital converted reception signals (FIG.4, Part.30); and processing, by the MIMO radar apparatus, the analog-digital converted reception signals to determine at least one of: a location of the object, distance of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, angle of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, direction of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus, or velocity of the object relative to the MIMO radar apparatus (“The range-angle map can be calculated - analogous to the range-Doppler map - by two stage Fourier transformation.” [0046])
Although Lang discloses a MIMO radar using N transmission channels, Lang does not explicitly disclose nor limit circulating MIMO radar waveforms. Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Chen discloses, the MIMO radar waveform comprises circulating the generated N waveforms forming the MIMO radar waveform (“form a complete circular chirp cycle radar frame. In this example, signals from each transmitter begin at the same time but are spaced apart in the frequency domain. “ [0057])
Chen teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of circulating MIMO radar waveforms so as to gain the advantage of improving angular resolution [0040, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang(DE 102018010369 A1) as modified by Chen(U S20200233076 A1) as applied to claims 1, 13, and 19 above, and further in view of Wu (US 11762077 B2)
Regarding claim 2, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses, performing the analog-digital conversion utilizes a sampling frequency f. given by f. = N Δf, wherein Δf denotes a constant frequency spacing between the N transmission channels (“the sample rate of the ADC may need to be increased beyond f.sub.s=2NΔf. [Col.11, ll.63-65])
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels so as to gain the advantage of improving signal separation [Col.4, Par.5, Wu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose filter banks. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses, the reception device comprises analog filter banks configured to filter the intermediate frequency signals for adjusting amplitudes of the intermediate frequency signals to avoid analog-to-digital conversion saturation (“a bank of notch filters (also known as a comb filter) is employed where each notch filter is tuned to a corresponding zero-range frequency” [Col.10, ll.59-61]).
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of up-converting in frequency the generated digital transmission signals so as to gain the advantage of improving signal quality. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Lang as modified by Chen and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 9. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose filter banks. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses, the analog filter banks comprise notch filters(“a bank of notch filters (also known as a comb filter) is employed where each notch filter is tuned to a corresponding zero-range frequency” [Col.10, ll.59-61]).
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of up-converting in frequency the generated digital transmission signals so as to gain the advantage of improving signal quality. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the radar apparatus is a part of a vehicle, an automobile, an automated guided vehicle, a robot, a home monitoring system, or a health monitoring system. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses wherein, the radar apparatus is part of a vehicle, an automobile, an automated guided vehicle, a robot, a home monitoring system, or a health monitoring system (“ it will be appreciated that radar systems may be used as sensors in a variety of different applications, including but not limited to automotive radar sensors for road safety systems, such as advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous driving (AD) systems. “ [Col5. LL.24-29])
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of integrating the radar apparatus into a vehicle so as to gain the advantage of improving vehicle control and safety systems. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 13. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses, the analog-digital conversion of the obtained intermediate frequency signals is performed with a sampling frequency fy given by fy = N Δf, wherein Δf denotes a constant frequency spacing between the N transmission channels and a constant frequency spacing between the N reception channels (“the sample rate of the ADC may need to be increased beyond f.sub.s=2NΔf. [Col.11, ll.63-65])
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels so as to gain the advantage of improving signal separation [Col.4, Par.5, Wu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 19. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels. Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. Wu discloses wherein, the analog-digital conversion of the obtained intermediate frequency signals is performed with a sampling frequency f given by fs= N Δf, wherein Δf denotes a constant frequency spacing between the N transmission channels and a constant frequency spacing between the N reception channels (“the sample rate of the ADC may need to be increased beyond f.sub.s=2NΔf. [Col.11, ll.63-65])
Wu teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of Wu to incorporate the features of sampling rate dependent on the frequency spacing between the N transmission channels so as to gain the advantage of improving signal separation [Col.4, Par.5, Wu]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang(DE 102018010369 A1) as modified by Chen(US20200233076A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of HAKOBYAN (DE 102019218337 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a digital signal generator. HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. HAKOBYAN discloses, the transmission device comprises a digital signal generator configured to generate digital transmission signals and a digital-analog converter configured to perform digital-analog conversion on the digital transmission signals to obtain analog transmission signals (“a single primary ramp P is first generated using a primary ramp generator 31, for example by means of […] direct digital synthesis (DDS)” [0054])
HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of HAKOBYAN to incorporate the features of a digital signal generator so as to gain the advantage of improving frequency agility. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Lang as modified by Chen and HAKOBYAN disclose all the limitations of claim 6. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a digital signal generator. HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. HAKOBYAN discloses, the transmission device comprises a local oscillator configured to up-convert in frequency the generated digital transmission signals (“The primary ramp P can be generated in baseband, so that the transmitter ramps R1 to R4 generated in baseband are subsequently upmixed” [0055]).
HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of HAKOBYAN to incorporate the features of up-converting in frequency the generated digital transmission signals so as to gain the advantage of improving frequency agility. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Lang as modified by Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 13. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a digital signal generator. HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. HAKOBYAN discloses wherein, the transmission device comprises a digital signal generator configured to generate digital transmission signals and a digital- analog converter configured to perform digital-analog conversion on the digital transmission signals to obtain analog transmission signals (“a single primary ramp P is first generated using a primary ramp generator 31, for example by means of […] direct digital synthesis (DDS)” [0054])
HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of HAKOBYAN to incorporate the features of a digital signal generator so as to gain the advantage of improving frequency agility. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Lang as modified by Chen and HAKOBYAN disclose all the limitations of claim 17. Lang as modified by Chen do not appear to disclose a digital signal generator. HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. HAKOBYAN discloses, the transmission device comprises a local oscillator configured to up-convert in frequency the generated digital transmission signals (“The primary ramp P can be generated in baseband, so that the transmitter ramps R1 to R4 generated in baseband are subsequently upmixed” [0055]).
HAKOBYAN teaches in the same field of MIMO radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen with the teachings of HAKOBYAN to incorporate the features of up-converting in frequency the generated digital transmission signals so as to gain the advantage of improving frequency agility. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang(DE 102018010369 A1) as modified by Chen(US 20200233076 A1) and HAKOBYAN (DE 102019218337 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of BAEK(US 12106667 B2)
Regarding claim 8, Lang as modified by Chen and HAKOBYAN disclose all the limitations of claim 6. Lang as modified by Chen and HAKOBYAN do not appear to disclose a low pass filter in the transmit chain. BAEK teaches in the same field of radar design. BAEK discloses, the transmission device comprises low-pass filters configured to low-pass filter the analog transmission signals (FIG.45, Part.9311).
BAEK teaches in the same field of radar design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lang as modified by Chen and HAKOBYAN with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of a low pass filter in the transmit chain so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.50, ll.53-55 BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Zhang(US 20240280682 A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0005] “The described embodiments enable arbitrary efficient radar waveforms, including (but not limited to) orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), space-time coding.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights